Today I'm going to compare Osama Bin Laden to Hitler and Valerie Solanas. It's a comparison that conservatives will initially like, but hate by the end. I am implying that you have to read the whole thing. So, here we go. Correct me if I get anything wrong.
ENEMIES
-Osama Bin Laden: Non-Muslims. Here, Muslims are defined as "Muslims who agree with what Osama Bin Laden wants to do."
-Hitler: Non-Aryans. Here, Aryans are defined as "people equally white as or whiter than Hitler who agree with what Hitler wanted to do."
-Valerie Solanas: Non-Women. Here, women are defined as "Women who agree with what Valerie Solanas wanted to do."
TACTICS
-Osama Bin Laden: Terrorist attacks against countries that aren't Muslim enough (see previous definition of Muslim).
-Hitler: Invading all countries in the world, one by one, and killing all non-Aryans.
-Valerie Solanas: Terrorist attacks against male institutions, gradually moving into an all out female revolt, that ends with the euthanization of all males, though she planned to be polite about it.
WAS/IS THIS PERSON INSANE
-Osama Bin Laden: Yes.
-Hitler: Yes.
-Valerie Solanas: Yes.
Ok, here comes the important bit.
PEOPLE THIS PERSON TRIED TO APPEAL TO
-Osama Bin Laden: Muslims in the Middle East in the present day.
-Hitler: Germans in the 1930s.
-Valerie Solanas: Women in the U.S.A. during the 70's and 80's.
POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC STATUS OF THESE PEOPLE
-Osama Bin Laden: Shit. Many of these countries were recently colonies, which means that they got fucked up economically in favor of wealthier countries. Also, nobody likes the idea that America can bomb the shit out of you at any time and get away with it.
-Hitler: Shit. The stock market had crashed recently, which meant that everyone working class was economically fucked up in favor of a few wealthy people*. Also, nobody likes the idea that America, Britain, and France can kick your ass, take your money, and force you to sign documents saying it was your fault, and get away with it.**
-Valerie Solanas: Pretty good, actually. The U.S.A., though it was doing worse than average during some of the times Valerie Solanas tried to take over the world, is always a good place to live. In general, there are jobs, and you get to vote.
DID THEY EVER GET TO DO ANYTHING BAD ON A LARGE SCALE <
-Osama Bin Laden: Yes.
-Hitler: Yes.
-Valerie Solanas: No.
HAVE YOU EVEN FUCKING HEARD OF THEM?
-Osama Bin Laden: Yes.
-Hitler: Yes.
-Valerie Solanas: No.
And there you have it. Sure, there are well educated terrorists. There's, like, at least five of them, and they run everything, and they're crazy. But without legions of uneducated desperate people, they couldn't do anything except print out a bunch of terrible pamphlets, get laughed at, and shoot Andy Warhol.
*Well, this was true in the U.S.A., anyway. A lot of people made huge amounts of money off the Depression. They had money allready, so it was just the ultimate opportunity to buy low, and once you've done that you're halfway to economic success.
**This is known as World War I. You probably know this, but a swing voter might have bumbled here.
Saturday, August 07, 2004
I assume someone else has noticed this by now, but I hadn't until the DNC, when I saw some commentator criticize Kerry for being boring. She kind of pissed me off, but I couldn't explain why. I mean, she wasn't saying anything particularly bad or untrue.
Then I realized that she was the exact same sort of person who would give a "Dean/Gore/etc is a madman/menace/extremist" speech.
Then I realized that it's always the same person. Dammit swing voter types, I already know and accept that you're dumb. Anyone who doesn't know who they are voting for -- at this stage of the campaign -- because they "need more information" is a stupid stupid idiot who just proved themself incapable of reading a candidate's platform or taking an incredibly short test with no possible wrong answers.
But come on. You can't criticize everyone for having strong opinions, then be surprised when the most successful candidate is a boring asshole who plays to the dumbest possible crowd, that crowd being you. You're praying for a Bullworth type hero to destroy the media bullshit that you know exists because the media told you so, but if he came, you'd crap your pants in fear because "he talked sort of loud."
Then I realized that she was the exact same sort of person who would give a "Dean/Gore/etc is a madman/menace/extremist" speech.
Then I realized that it's always the same person. Dammit swing voter types, I already know and accept that you're dumb. Anyone who doesn't know who they are voting for -- at this stage of the campaign -- because they "need more information" is a stupid stupid idiot who just proved themself incapable of reading a candidate's platform or taking an incredibly short test with no possible wrong answers.
But come on. You can't criticize everyone for having strong opinions, then be surprised when the most successful candidate is a boring asshole who plays to the dumbest possible crowd, that crowd being you. You're praying for a Bullworth type hero to destroy the media bullshit that you know exists because the media told you so, but if he came, you'd crap your pants in fear because "he talked sort of loud."
Wednesday, August 04, 2004
Since I've been gone for a while, I'm going to start slowly. So first, The Bitter Shack of Resentment goes on my wad of links, for being good.
Second, I make fun of something conservatives say a lot. It's a really easy one, but I'm out of practice.
I assume you've all heard Clinton's speech at the Democratic convention. You can read it, listen to it, and watch it here if you haven't. It's fairly badass and most of it is totally irrelevant to the point that I'm going to make. The relevant bit is here, when Clinton talks about the distribution of Bush's tax cut:
When I was in office, the Republicans were pretty mean to me. When I left and made money, I became part of the most important group in the world to them. At first I thought I should send them a thank you note—until I realized they were sending you the bill.
Now, I've heard many people criticize Clinton for this. They say he's a hypocrite, because he criticizes the wealthiest %1 of Americans while being one of them. Good job guys. As always, I'm going to use an analogy that you'll understand one sentence in, thus negating any point of writing the whole thing.
So, imagine a theoretical white person in the mid 1950s.
This theoretical white person says, "You know, it's really unfair how much official discrimination there is against black people. I'm going to work hard to make this country more fair towards all people, even if that may make me less wealthy or powerful in the long run, because it's the right thing to do."
Now, is it more accurate to describe this person as "a reasonable human being with a conscience and a strong sense of right and wrong" or "a hypocrite who flip-flops and didn't really go to Vietnam somehow?"
Second, I make fun of something conservatives say a lot. It's a really easy one, but I'm out of practice.
I assume you've all heard Clinton's speech at the Democratic convention. You can read it, listen to it, and watch it here if you haven't. It's fairly badass and most of it is totally irrelevant to the point that I'm going to make. The relevant bit is here, when Clinton talks about the distribution of Bush's tax cut:
When I was in office, the Republicans were pretty mean to me. When I left and made money, I became part of the most important group in the world to them. At first I thought I should send them a thank you note—until I realized they were sending you the bill.
Now, I've heard many people criticize Clinton for this. They say he's a hypocrite, because he criticizes the wealthiest %1 of Americans while being one of them. Good job guys. As always, I'm going to use an analogy that you'll understand one sentence in, thus negating any point of writing the whole thing.
So, imagine a theoretical white person in the mid 1950s.
This theoretical white person says, "You know, it's really unfair how much official discrimination there is against black people. I'm going to work hard to make this country more fair towards all people, even if that may make me less wealthy or powerful in the long run, because it's the right thing to do."
Now, is it more accurate to describe this person as "a reasonable human being with a conscience and a strong sense of right and wrong" or "a hypocrite who flip-flops and didn't really go to Vietnam somehow?"
So, I kind of forgot about this site. Then I remembered it again, and I said to myself "If the lefty directory bothered to link to me, I'll start it up again, and if it didn't, I'm going to forget about blogger forever" So then I checked, and obviously, since you are reading this, they updated. So, starting tomorrow, I'm going to resume my pseudodaily destruction of republican talking points with my mighty wit.
Thursday, June 03, 2004
Ok. Scroll down to my May 17 entry.
Read this, noting how she mentions sarin.
I'd be less pessimistic if everything I predict didn't turn out to be true.
Read this, noting how she mentions sarin.
I'd be less pessimistic if everything I predict didn't turn out to be true.
Thursday, May 20, 2004
I can't get enough of these White House press briefings. They're so good. It's like a complete list of everything Bush did wrong that day, with spokesman who alternates between being stumbling around not knowing where he is and blatantly contradicting himself thrown in for comic relief.
Consider this:
Q Scott, accepting the fact that you're going to lay blame for the current high gasoline prices on the Democrats for not passing your energy bill three years ago, what levels do prices have to reach before the President determines that they are having a detrimental effect on the economy? Are we there yet, or does he believe that there's still room for prices to rise?
MR. McCLELLAN: John, the President believes, like Americans do, the gas prices are too high. That's why we need a comprehensive energy plan, to address this problem that continues to come up every year. I think we've gone through this every year from this podium during this administration.
Remember that in 2001, the President put forward a comprehensive energy plan to address the real problem, which is our dependence on foreign sources of energy. This plan would reduce our dependence on foreign sources of energy; it would increase domestic exploration and production; it would expand conservation; and it would increase energy efficiency. It was a comprehensive plan. It would also modernize our electricity grid. And this was an important plan.
The President urged Congress to act in 2001. He urged Congress to act in 2002. In 2003, he urged Congress to act again. Then we were faced with a blackout last summer, and he again urged Congress to act, so that we don't keep going through this problem year after year.
Q So he says that gas prices are too high. But does he believe that they're high enough now that they are having a detrimental effect on the economy?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, John, the economy is growing stronger because of the action that this administration has taken to get the economy out of recession and moving forward. So the economy is growing stronger. But the President, as part of his six-point plan to create an even more robust environment for job creation has called on Congress to pass a comprehensive energy plan. That's what we need to do. We want to continue to create as robust an environment as possible for job creation.
Q The Democrats are out there today saying that the high gasoline prices, high oil prices are having an effect on everything from the airlines -- which have to spend an extra $180 million a day for every penny the price of fuel goes up; consumers are feeling the pinch, as well. Does the President accept the Democrats' argument that high gas prices are having a detrimental effect on the economy?
MR. McCLELLAN: John, I think the American people deserve more than cheap political rhetoric. The American people deserve leadership and action. This President has led and acted. This President, when he came into office, worked to develop a comprehensive energy plan that would reduce our dependence on foreign sources of energy. He has led and acted, and he has called on Congress to act.
Unfortunately, Senate Democrats have held up moving forward on a comprehensive energy plan. They have obstructed the process. So we continue to find ourselves in the same situation year after year. The reason we are in this situation is because [OF THE DEMOCRATS AND THEIR NEVER ENDING SUPPORT FOR TERRORISM] The reason we are in this situation is because there has been years of inaction. This President has acted. This President has put forward a plan. And this President has called on Congress to act, and that's what Congress needs to do, so that we don't continue to go through this issue year after year.
(emphasis and stupid, obvious edit mine)
Also note that the reporter asked Mr. McClellan a yes or no question, and he talked for a day without saying yes or no. Good job, Mr. McClellan.
Consider this:
Q Scott, accepting the fact that you're going to lay blame for the current high gasoline prices on the Democrats for not passing your energy bill three years ago, what levels do prices have to reach before the President determines that they are having a detrimental effect on the economy? Are we there yet, or does he believe that there's still room for prices to rise?
MR. McCLELLAN: John, the President believes, like Americans do, the gas prices are too high. That's why we need a comprehensive energy plan, to address this problem that continues to come up every year. I think we've gone through this every year from this podium during this administration.
Remember that in 2001, the President put forward a comprehensive energy plan to address the real problem, which is our dependence on foreign sources of energy. This plan would reduce our dependence on foreign sources of energy; it would increase domestic exploration and production; it would expand conservation; and it would increase energy efficiency. It was a comprehensive plan. It would also modernize our electricity grid. And this was an important plan.
The President urged Congress to act in 2001. He urged Congress to act in 2002. In 2003, he urged Congress to act again. Then we were faced with a blackout last summer, and he again urged Congress to act, so that we don't keep going through this problem year after year.
Q So he says that gas prices are too high. But does he believe that they're high enough now that they are having a detrimental effect on the economy?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, John, the economy is growing stronger because of the action that this administration has taken to get the economy out of recession and moving forward. So the economy is growing stronger. But the President, as part of his six-point plan to create an even more robust environment for job creation has called on Congress to pass a comprehensive energy plan. That's what we need to do. We want to continue to create as robust an environment as possible for job creation.
Q The Democrats are out there today saying that the high gasoline prices, high oil prices are having an effect on everything from the airlines -- which have to spend an extra $180 million a day for every penny the price of fuel goes up; consumers are feeling the pinch, as well. Does the President accept the Democrats' argument that high gas prices are having a detrimental effect on the economy?
MR. McCLELLAN: John, I think the American people deserve more than cheap political rhetoric. The American people deserve leadership and action. This President has led and acted. This President, when he came into office, worked to develop a comprehensive energy plan that would reduce our dependence on foreign sources of energy. He has led and acted, and he has called on Congress to act.
Unfortunately, Senate Democrats have held up moving forward on a comprehensive energy plan. They have obstructed the process. So we continue to find ourselves in the same situation year after year. The reason we are in this situation is because [OF THE DEMOCRATS AND THEIR NEVER ENDING SUPPORT FOR TERRORISM] The reason we are in this situation is because there has been years of inaction. This President has acted. This President has put forward a plan. And this President has called on Congress to act, and that's what Congress needs to do, so that we don't continue to go through this issue year after year.
(emphasis and stupid, obvious edit mine)
Also note that the reporter asked Mr. McClellan a yes or no question, and he talked for a day without saying yes or no. Good job, Mr. McClellan.
Tuesday, May 18, 2004
Children don't just need two parents; they also need a mother and father.
This is why the government bans divorce and not remarrying instantly if your spouse dies.
When your entire argument is based on one sentence, you'd better make sure it isn't stupid.
This is why the government bans divorce and not remarrying instantly if your spouse dies.
When your entire argument is based on one sentence, you'd better make sure it isn't stupid.
Monday, May 17, 2004
This is really quite genius. See, first, something happens that proves - if you are incredibly dumb - that Saddam Hussein had a WMD program that he refused to dismantle and we knew where it was, which is why we found it by accident when it went off and had almost no effect on anything.
Next, someone speaking for the Bush administration quietly mumbles something about how it doesn't prove anything about Saddam Hussein's WMD program because we can't prove it originated in Iraq, plus it was probably the most laughable weapon ever and really not worth invading a country over.
Then, Newsmax immediately links to a nearly identical story with the link text "WMD Confirmed: Sarin Bomb Explodes." I assume this is going to be even bigger than that time terrorists defeated Spain.
A few days later, the Bush administration has not said "shut up you dicks" to Newsmax.
A few months later, support for the war in Iraq is way higher, and even more people think Iraq had a direct role in the 9-11 attack.
Next, someone speaking for the Bush administration quietly mumbles something about how it doesn't prove anything about Saddam Hussein's WMD program because we can't prove it originated in Iraq, plus it was probably the most laughable weapon ever and really not worth invading a country over.
Then, Newsmax immediately links to a nearly identical story with the link text "WMD Confirmed: Sarin Bomb Explodes." I assume this is going to be even bigger than that time terrorists defeated Spain.
A few days later, the Bush administration has not said "shut up you dicks" to Newsmax.
A few months later, support for the war in Iraq is way higher, and even more people think Iraq had a direct role in the 9-11 attack.
Thursday, May 13, 2004
So, I haven't updated in weeks. See, I wanted as many people as possible to see the Immigrant X post, so I decided to leave it up for a few days. Then I forgot about everything and did nothing productive for a week. But now I'm going to be good now until I lose interest again.
So, here's what I would do if I were Bush.
First, find one of those good targets that Iraq is famous for having, and just bomb the fuck out of it. Make sure there are terrorists in it.
Next, declare victory again. Don't involve the phrase "mission accomplished" or any banners, or people will get suspicious.
Finally, invade Vietnam.
Yeah, you heard me. They're communist AND Asian, and between this and the surprising lack of any moral objection I've heard of to The Vietnam War: The Video Game plus any of the generic "we could have won in Vietnam if it weren't for those damn terrorists* at home" talk that I hear constantly, you know it would go over well with enough people to keep the approval ratings up.
It worked in Afghanistan. Interestingly enough, you can still get news from Afghanistan, and you can kind of predict the sort of thing they have to say. Hey, we're still here, we're just totally fucked over. Thanks for leaving before you accomplished anything. Love, Afghanistan.
It doesn't say that right this second, but scroll down.
So, here's what I would do if I were Bush.
First, find one of those good targets that Iraq is famous for having, and just bomb the fuck out of it. Make sure there are terrorists in it.
Next, declare victory again. Don't involve the phrase "mission accomplished" or any banners, or people will get suspicious.
Finally, invade Vietnam.
Yeah, you heard me. They're communist AND Asian, and between this and the surprising lack of any moral objection I've heard of to The Vietnam War: The Video Game plus any of the generic "we could have won in Vietnam if it weren't for those damn terrorists* at home" talk that I hear constantly, you know it would go over well with enough people to keep the approval ratings up.
It worked in Afghanistan. Interestingly enough, you can still get news from Afghanistan, and you can kind of predict the sort of thing they have to say. Hey, we're still here, we're just totally fucked over. Thanks for leaving before you accomplished anything. Love, Afghanistan.
It doesn't say that right this second, but scroll down.
Tuesday, May 04, 2004
Democrats Outdo Bush in Abetting Illegal Aliens!!!!!
Ok, aside from the obvious slant on what is supposed to be a news article*, this seems really stupid. Now, most people who support the sort of thinking in this article actually aren't any more racist than I am**, no matter what anyone tells you. I hate accusing people of being racist because it's hard to prove, but in this case I don't have to! I just have to accuse them of not knowing how to count.
The standard non-racist argument against illegal immigration is that illegal immigrants pay significantly fewer taxes than the average citizen, while using significantly more money in social services. While I could be a dick who hates logical argument and say "that's also a good argument for putting poor people in camps, you asshole," and win the argument in most people's eyes, I'm not going to. Instead, let's look at one person who comes to the country illegally to get a job, which is usually why people come here illegally, in two different scenarios.
Now:
Step 1: Immigrant X sneaks around the border patrol somehow.
Step 2: Immigrant X gets a shitty job and ends up getting way less than minimum wage, because Immigrant X's employer can threaten to get Immigrant X deported.
Step 3: Immigrant X has very little money, and AS A RESULT PAYS VERY FEW TAXES AND USES A LOT OF SOCIAL SERVICES.
Ok, I think most of you know where I'm going with this by now, but for those of you who don't, here is the second scenario:
Step 1: Immigrant X sneaks around the border patrol somehow, gets the same shitty job but gets minimum wage and some security due to being legitimately in the country, and as a result has more money, pays more taxes, and uses fewer social services, and everybody fucking wins except for possibly Immigrant X's employer, but who gives a shit because they were breaking the law to screw people over.
Step 2: Immigrant X goes to Rupert Murdoch's house and takes a giant dump on the windshield of his car.
Step 3: Immigrant X is applauded by everyone and makes thousands of new friends.
Also, if you name your band Immigrant X and have a show near me, I'll go to it.
*"At a news conference, Jackson Lee, D-Houston, proposed her own bill for comprehensive immigration reform while criticizing President Bush's plan that would allow those who have a job to apply for a three-year temporary visa."
OH NO!! PARTISAN POLITICS OF DIVIDING AND NOT UNITING!!!
**Nobody told me it was racist to say "fuck the Jews" until after I said it, so it's ok.
Ok, aside from the obvious slant on what is supposed to be a news article*, this seems really stupid. Now, most people who support the sort of thinking in this article actually aren't any more racist than I am**, no matter what anyone tells you. I hate accusing people of being racist because it's hard to prove, but in this case I don't have to! I just have to accuse them of not knowing how to count.
The standard non-racist argument against illegal immigration is that illegal immigrants pay significantly fewer taxes than the average citizen, while using significantly more money in social services. While I could be a dick who hates logical argument and say "that's also a good argument for putting poor people in camps, you asshole," and win the argument in most people's eyes, I'm not going to. Instead, let's look at one person who comes to the country illegally to get a job, which is usually why people come here illegally, in two different scenarios.
Now:
Step 1: Immigrant X sneaks around the border patrol somehow.
Step 2: Immigrant X gets a shitty job and ends up getting way less than minimum wage, because Immigrant X's employer can threaten to get Immigrant X deported.
Step 3: Immigrant X has very little money, and AS A RESULT PAYS VERY FEW TAXES AND USES A LOT OF SOCIAL SERVICES.
Ok, I think most of you know where I'm going with this by now, but for those of you who don't, here is the second scenario:
Step 1: Immigrant X sneaks around the border patrol somehow, gets the same shitty job but gets minimum wage and some security due to being legitimately in the country, and as a result has more money, pays more taxes, and uses fewer social services, and everybody fucking wins except for possibly Immigrant X's employer, but who gives a shit because they were breaking the law to screw people over.
Step 2: Immigrant X goes to Rupert Murdoch's house and takes a giant dump on the windshield of his car.
Step 3: Immigrant X is applauded by everyone and makes thousands of new friends.
Also, if you name your band Immigrant X and have a show near me, I'll go to it.
*"At a news conference, Jackson Lee, D-Houston, proposed her own bill for comprehensive immigration reform while criticizing President Bush's plan that would allow those who have a job to apply for a three-year temporary visa."
OH NO!! PARTISAN POLITICS OF DIVIDING AND NOT UNITING!!!
**Nobody told me it was racist to say "fuck the Jews" until after I said it, so it's ok.
Monday, May 03, 2004
I have a couple of things I'd like to announce.
First, I'm really liberal. I support gay marriage, legalizing marijuana and prostitution, and lots of other ultra-liberal type issues that I can't be bothered to list.
Second, the attack on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001 was a horrible tragedy. In fact, any time even one innocent person is killed, it is a horrible tragedy, which is why I want to condemn all terrorism. All terrorism sucks. This includes the sort of terrorism carried out by Muslim fanatics, even if they're from the Middle East.
In conclusion, suck it, Ann Coulter. I just won. Also, since you haven't denounced any Nazis lately, I hereby proclaim that you hate Jews, you sick fuck.
First, I'm really liberal. I support gay marriage, legalizing marijuana and prostitution, and lots of other ultra-liberal type issues that I can't be bothered to list.
Second, the attack on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001 was a horrible tragedy. In fact, any time even one innocent person is killed, it is a horrible tragedy, which is why I want to condemn all terrorism. All terrorism sucks. This includes the sort of terrorism carried out by Muslim fanatics, even if they're from the Middle East.
In conclusion, suck it, Ann Coulter. I just won. Also, since you haven't denounced any Nazis lately, I hereby proclaim that you hate Jews, you sick fuck.
Sunday, May 02, 2004
My friend asked my why I read Newsmax yesterday. I couldn't answer because my roommate's all-nighter on some mystery assignment had kept me from sleeping for more than two hours at most, and it was nearly midnight. But now I had what I assume is a good amount of sleep, and it's the middle of the afternoon.
The best way to answer this question that I can think of is an analogy between two rather bad metal bands that desperately want to be taken seriously, Rhapsody and Iron Maiden. Now, Iron Maiden really wants you to believe that they're an actual band. Unfortunately, all of their songs are about demons and ghosts and going insane as a result of said demons and ghosts, and equally stupid shit. No amount of basing songs off Samuel Taylor Coleridge poems, or changing time signatures in the middle of the song, or being famous, will make Iron Maiden a real band. Rhapsody, in contrast, has songs that are equally stupid, but does them unapologetically. In their music videos, they carry swords and fight lens flares. Rhapsody's songs have harpsichord solos mixed in with the guitar solos. They have a choir, an orchestra, and Christopher Lee. You cannot take them seriously, and as a result, they are far more enjoyable than Iron Maiden.
Now, let's compare Iron Maiden and Rhapsody to, say, CNN and Newsmax. The analogy seems pretty obvious. CNN might have a slant and it might not, but if it does, it makes a solid attempt to hide that slant. It's fairly obvious just by whatever deck of cards newsmax is trying to sell you this week* what sort of politics they support. Not only that, but they're totally unappologetic about it. In fact, they wish all journalism was replaced with their crap.
Now, to support bush, you must fall into one of two categories. One category is those who are so uninformed that they don't know where they are. The other category actively believes in "support the troops" type slogans more than they believe in the utter lack of proof of any connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda, or the utter lack of WMDs found in Iraq, or the utter lack of any other proof that Iraq was a danger to us. You know, people who read get all of their news from hideously designed sites covered in ads of questionable taste with names starting with N. To the first category, I say "read a fucking paper you dick." To the second, I read newsmax and bitch, and hope in vain that a few people in Ohio or one of those states will read it and think "everything I know is a lie," tell their friends, and Bush will lose the election.
This is probably the least plausible plan to get Bush out of office that I have heard so far, which is why I continue to read actual news.
*The Deck of Reagan, thus proving my point.
The best way to answer this question that I can think of is an analogy between two rather bad metal bands that desperately want to be taken seriously, Rhapsody and Iron Maiden. Now, Iron Maiden really wants you to believe that they're an actual band. Unfortunately, all of their songs are about demons and ghosts and going insane as a result of said demons and ghosts, and equally stupid shit. No amount of basing songs off Samuel Taylor Coleridge poems, or changing time signatures in the middle of the song, or being famous, will make Iron Maiden a real band. Rhapsody, in contrast, has songs that are equally stupid, but does them unapologetically. In their music videos, they carry swords and fight lens flares. Rhapsody's songs have harpsichord solos mixed in with the guitar solos. They have a choir, an orchestra, and Christopher Lee. You cannot take them seriously, and as a result, they are far more enjoyable than Iron Maiden.
Now, let's compare Iron Maiden and Rhapsody to, say, CNN and Newsmax. The analogy seems pretty obvious. CNN might have a slant and it might not, but if it does, it makes a solid attempt to hide that slant. It's fairly obvious just by whatever deck of cards newsmax is trying to sell you this week* what sort of politics they support. Not only that, but they're totally unappologetic about it. In fact, they wish all journalism was replaced with their crap.
Now, to support bush, you must fall into one of two categories. One category is those who are so uninformed that they don't know where they are. The other category actively believes in "support the troops" type slogans more than they believe in the utter lack of proof of any connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda, or the utter lack of WMDs found in Iraq, or the utter lack of any other proof that Iraq was a danger to us. You know, people who read get all of their news from hideously designed sites covered in ads of questionable taste with names starting with N. To the first category, I say "read a fucking paper you dick." To the second, I read newsmax and bitch, and hope in vain that a few people in Ohio or one of those states will read it and think "everything I know is a lie," tell their friends, and Bush will lose the election.
This is probably the least plausible plan to get Bush out of office that I have heard so far, which is why I continue to read actual news.
*The Deck of Reagan, thus proving my point.
Thursday, April 29, 2004
I've come to several conclusions.
First, making fun of things that everyone knows are badly written is kind of a waste of time. I'm going to keep doing it because it's fun, I'm just not going to pretend it serves a purpose.
Second, my best writing is autobiographical. I think this is because the stupid, stereotypical pissed off voice I insist on inserting into everything I write makes the most sense when it's something I actually did, because it's just what I was thinking at the time, not just some crap I stuck in hoping you'd be my friend because I'm mean to strangers. Because of this, I'm going to start attending any political event I can and taking notes, and blogging the results.
Third, oddly enough, people who aren't me read this site, yet I haven't seen any e-mails or comments. If you are reading this, you have to e-mail me or comment. I won't ask you again.
First, making fun of things that everyone knows are badly written is kind of a waste of time. I'm going to keep doing it because it's fun, I'm just not going to pretend it serves a purpose.
Second, my best writing is autobiographical. I think this is because the stupid, stereotypical pissed off voice I insist on inserting into everything I write makes the most sense when it's something I actually did, because it's just what I was thinking at the time, not just some crap I stuck in hoping you'd be my friend because I'm mean to strangers. Because of this, I'm going to start attending any political event I can and taking notes, and blogging the results.
Third, oddly enough, people who aren't me read this site, yet I haven't seen any e-mails or comments. If you are reading this, you have to e-mail me or comment. I won't ask you again.
This is insanely interesting. In fact, I strongly recommend you read http://whitehouse.gov on a regular basis, if only because when faced with someone who tries to pull a "Bush never said that, my position is consistent, I swear" you can go to google and do something like this, point at the result, and ignore everything they say in response because you've already won.
But beyond, that, the press briefing I linked to shows us a lot of interesting things. Most importantly, that our press isn't a bunch of total wusses. This came as a shock to me, but there's no other way to explain it. Honestly, read this:
Q How would you describe exactly what it is that the Iraqis will get on June 30th? Is it sovereignty? Is it limited sovereignty? Is it the exercise of the principles of sovereignty? I'm not quite exactly sure what they're going to get.
MR. McCLELLAN: Sovereignty will be transferred to the Iraqi people on June 30th. That is what was agreed to with Iraqi leaders under the November 15th agreement, and we are moving forward to meet that commitment. The Iraqi people want us to meet that timetable. And we anticipate that, in accordance with the oft-expressed preferences of Iraqi leaders, that the Iraqis, themselves, will impose some limits on the authority of that interim government. But sovereignty will be transferred to the Iraqi people on June 30th.
Q But it doesn't seem to fit the true definition of sovereignty, because they will not have control of the country, they will not have control of security --
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, let's keep a couple of things --
Q There's some thought, even, of collapsing the --
MR. McCLELLAN: Let's separate out sovereignty and let's separate out authority and let's keep this in context. This is an interim represented body that we are talking about. The precise structure and composition of the interim government are being worked about among Iraqi leaders and Mr. Brahimi, in consultation with the Coalition Provisional Authority.
Are those the kind of questions you see in a mainstream newspaper? Think about how badass it would be if newspapers actually published articles consisting of some journalist forcing an official spokesperson* of the Bush administration to admit that things they tell you are totally misleading over and over. I, personally, would piss myself with delight if this happened. But it doesn't. Why not? Well, I really wasn't a big fan of the "oh no! corporate control of the media!" theory, but someone on some level is stopping some awesome people from accurately portraying this administration, and that's worth thinking about.
Oh, and it also answers my questions about those who support the draft that I asked earlier. When they become sovereign, we'll need to send more of our soldiers to occupy their country. Suppose I'll have to get shot at for more than a month.
*I'm not actually sure who Scott McClellan is, but that seems like a reasonable guess.
But beyond, that, the press briefing I linked to shows us a lot of interesting things. Most importantly, that our press isn't a bunch of total wusses. This came as a shock to me, but there's no other way to explain it. Honestly, read this:
Q How would you describe exactly what it is that the Iraqis will get on June 30th? Is it sovereignty? Is it limited sovereignty? Is it the exercise of the principles of sovereignty? I'm not quite exactly sure what they're going to get.
MR. McCLELLAN: Sovereignty will be transferred to the Iraqi people on June 30th. That is what was agreed to with Iraqi leaders under the November 15th agreement, and we are moving forward to meet that commitment. The Iraqi people want us to meet that timetable. And we anticipate that, in accordance with the oft-expressed preferences of Iraqi leaders, that the Iraqis, themselves, will impose some limits on the authority of that interim government. But sovereignty will be transferred to the Iraqi people on June 30th.
Q But it doesn't seem to fit the true definition of sovereignty, because they will not have control of the country, they will not have control of security --
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, let's keep a couple of things --
Q There's some thought, even, of collapsing the --
MR. McCLELLAN: Let's separate out sovereignty and let's separate out authority and let's keep this in context. This is an interim represented body that we are talking about. The precise structure and composition of the interim government are being worked about among Iraqi leaders and Mr. Brahimi, in consultation with the Coalition Provisional Authority.
Are those the kind of questions you see in a mainstream newspaper? Think about how badass it would be if newspapers actually published articles consisting of some journalist forcing an official spokesperson* of the Bush administration to admit that things they tell you are totally misleading over and over. I, personally, would piss myself with delight if this happened. But it doesn't. Why not? Well, I really wasn't a big fan of the "oh no! corporate control of the media!" theory, but someone on some level is stopping some awesome people from accurately portraying this administration, and that's worth thinking about.
Oh, and it also answers my questions about those who support the draft that I asked earlier. When they become sovereign, we'll need to send more of our soldiers to occupy their country. Suppose I'll have to get shot at for more than a month.
*I'm not actually sure who Scott McClellan is, but that seems like a reasonable guess.
Wednesday, April 28, 2004
Today I picked up a copy of The Redwood Review, the local shitty free newspaper that alternates between articles about how God hates fags, and articles condemning terrorism, in the hope that you'll get confused and think that hating fags is morally equivalent to condemning terrorism. Their website is here, but I wouldn't bother.
Point is, I was reading an opinion piece in The Redwood Review. It was pretty coherent, assuming it was true, but then the writer actually said "spending cuts [are] always an unpopular solution."
Now, this is the kind of reality disregarding propaganda technique crap that gets me super pissed off. In fact, conservatives' use of the word "spending" pisses me off. You'll never hear any of them say what the "spending" was actually spent on - implying that somewhere, there is a mysterious Fund For The Inserting Of Money Into Jeff Bingaman's* Anal Cavity and that's the reason schools aren't properly funded. If we just got rid of all the spending, we could probably afford up to date textbooks in our schools!**
*I went to senate.gov and picked a Democrat at random. I have no idea who he is.
**Here, I almost went on to say something along the lines of "Now we can go on to spend on the important things, like nukes to fight terrorists with and debt and ruining the economy because we're conservatives and that's what we like to do!" It's a good thing I caught myself before the irony killed anyone.
Point is, I was reading an opinion piece in The Redwood Review. It was pretty coherent, assuming it was true, but then the writer actually said "spending cuts [are] always an unpopular solution."
Now, this is the kind of reality disregarding propaganda technique crap that gets me super pissed off. In fact, conservatives' use of the word "spending" pisses me off. You'll never hear any of them say what the "spending" was actually spent on - implying that somewhere, there is a mysterious Fund For The Inserting Of Money Into Jeff Bingaman's* Anal Cavity and that's the reason schools aren't properly funded. If we just got rid of all the spending, we could probably afford up to date textbooks in our schools!**
*I went to senate.gov and picked a Democrat at random. I have no idea who he is.
**Here, I almost went on to say something along the lines of "Now we can go on to spend on the important things, like nukes to fight terrorists with and debt and ruining the economy because we're conservatives and that's what we like to do!" It's a good thing I caught myself before the irony killed anyone.
Sunday, April 25, 2004
Ok, so apparently some people think it's a good idea to bring back the draft. Now, this obviously makes me nervous for lame, selfish reasons, but it appears that I'm not gonna die gonna die gonna die for my government, and I guess I'm happy about that.
But I've got a more legitimate, less wussy objection to this argument.
Let's say the draft passes, which if it is introduced immediately I assume will take at least a week or so. Let's say I get drafted within seconds of this happening. Obviously, I can't go to Iraq immediately, because I have no military training. I also have no idea how long we train our people for, but I'm assuming, since we've got the best army in the world, that we do a reasonably good job. So, a minimum total amount of time between now and my actually going to Iraq of slightly over a month.
Now, consider that we're supposed to hand over power to the Iraqis by June 30. Now, I know that "sovereign nation" doesn't necessarily mean "not occupied by thousands of foreigners" but still, I assume this means we have fewer people in Iraq. So, I'll be of pretty limited genuine use in Iraq. I realize that we're sending people home, but still.
So, basically, any argument for a draft is an argument for continuing to spread ourselves even more thin, and ignoring actual terrorists. I know it's not very mainstream now, but since spreading ourselves too thin to do anything useful seems to be official policy, how long can it be before this idea gets a lot more support?
But I've got a more legitimate, less wussy objection to this argument.
Let's say the draft passes, which if it is introduced immediately I assume will take at least a week or so. Let's say I get drafted within seconds of this happening. Obviously, I can't go to Iraq immediately, because I have no military training. I also have no idea how long we train our people for, but I'm assuming, since we've got the best army in the world, that we do a reasonably good job. So, a minimum total amount of time between now and my actually going to Iraq of slightly over a month.
Now, consider that we're supposed to hand over power to the Iraqis by June 30. Now, I know that "sovereign nation" doesn't necessarily mean "not occupied by thousands of foreigners" but still, I assume this means we have fewer people in Iraq. So, I'll be of pretty limited genuine use in Iraq. I realize that we're sending people home, but still.
So, basically, any argument for a draft is an argument for continuing to spread ourselves even more thin, and ignoring actual terrorists. I know it's not very mainstream now, but since spreading ourselves too thin to do anything useful seems to be official policy, how long can it be before this idea gets a lot more support?
Saturday, April 24, 2004
Wednesday, April 21, 2004
Ok, please forgive me in advance if you can, but I'm going to write something that isn't particularly up to date or original. To compensate, I'm going to use the phrase "giant bulldozer robots," so read carefully.
Has anyone not heard of The Project for a New American Century? If you haven't, just imagine the villains from any cartoon in the 80s, and it's them. I swear, if the people at the PNAC gets any more evil they're going to move on from their current goal of "American world leadership" and just send an army of giant bulldozer robots to cut down all the trees in the land, then use said trees to power a giant laser that they use to shrink famous landmarks around the world.
Don't take my word for it, though, look at their statement of principles. Be sure to read the list of names at the bottom. If you can and do read a newspaper occasionally, a few should look familiar.
Now, read this. Pay attention to the date.
My point is, Iraq had nothing to do with the war on terror. You can debate whether it was a good idea all you like, but stop pretending it had anything to do with anything.
Has anyone not heard of The Project for a New American Century? If you haven't, just imagine the villains from any cartoon in the 80s, and it's them. I swear, if the people at the PNAC gets any more evil they're going to move on from their current goal of "American world leadership" and just send an army of giant bulldozer robots to cut down all the trees in the land, then use said trees to power a giant laser that they use to shrink famous landmarks around the world.
Don't take my word for it, though, look at their statement of principles. Be sure to read the list of names at the bottom. If you can and do read a newspaper occasionally, a few should look familiar.
Now, read this. Pay attention to the date.
My point is, Iraq had nothing to do with the war on terror. You can debate whether it was a good idea all you like, but stop pretending it had anything to do with anything.
Monday, April 19, 2004
I was talking with one of my friends a few days ago, and the conversation led to one of my better ideas. I read so many terrible persuasive essays, and I'm tired of them. Therefore, I have decided that from this day forth, all persuasive essays of any kind are required to include a simple flow chart showing the facts that lead to their conclusions. This really isn't too much to ask. It takes about a minute to do in MS Paint, and it's an easy way to prove that your logic is sound. If anyone tries to argue with you, point at your chart and wait for them to disprove a connection you made, which they won't be able to, because you looked at it too and made sure you wrote something that made sense.
The hidden danger to the chart system, of course, is that this mysteriously popular article could never be written. Imagine you were to criticize this article without using the chart system. You'd probably say things like "hey, should we really base our countries policies off an empire that spent all of it's time declaring other civilizations inferior and then invading them and enslaving people?" or "I'm no expert, but I don't think you can declare everyone in a city sub-human and then say you have no problem with them," and you'd never really get anywhere. But imagine that the following chart is next to the article.
All you have to do is point at the chart and wait, and at most, Dr. Jack Wheeler manages to mumble "Fallujah delenda est" before stumbling away crying. Then you're done and you can go take a nap. The only down side is that you can't use horrible writing to get incredibly angry for a while, but there's still TV.
If I can get enough support for this idea, I'd also like to require politicians to end any statement they make in an interview by repeating the question and then giving a one sentence summary of their answer.
The hidden danger to the chart system, of course, is that this mysteriously popular article could never be written. Imagine you were to criticize this article without using the chart system. You'd probably say things like "hey, should we really base our countries policies off an empire that spent all of it's time declaring other civilizations inferior and then invading them and enslaving people?" or "I'm no expert, but I don't think you can declare everyone in a city sub-human and then say you have no problem with them," and you'd never really get anywhere. But imagine that the following chart is next to the article.
All you have to do is point at the chart and wait, and at most, Dr. Jack Wheeler manages to mumble "Fallujah delenda est" before stumbling away crying. Then you're done and you can go take a nap. The only down side is that you can't use horrible writing to get incredibly angry for a while, but there's still TV.
If I can get enough support for this idea, I'd also like to require politicians to end any statement they make in an interview by repeating the question and then giving a one sentence summary of their answer.
Sunday, April 18, 2004
Saturday, April 17, 2004
So, I've had this for three days and I've already failed to update regularly. This is a good sign.
Todays horrible article on newsmax is actually a paid advertisement. At first, though it was really terrible, I didn't want to do write about it. After all, newsmax doesn't technically control what ads they run, and ads definitely don't count as political content. Then I changed my mind, because if you look at the front page for articles, and you scroll down, you'll see ads mixed in with the articles. Newsmax is definitely trying to fool you into confusing advertising with content. So, I was fooled. The following link and everything in it was created by newsmax, and everything in it was newsmax's idea.
Apparently, John Kerry is a communist who hates America. You can tell because he's been in two pictures with Jane "People Like To Call Me 'Hanoi Jane' For Reasons That Are Somewhat Unclear To Me Because I'm 19 Years Old" Fonda, one of them fake. This seems somewhat questionable to me, especially because the main page of the store is full of articles about Kerry, all of which fail to connect him with any actual America hating or terrorism. Then again, the Vietnam War is in that fuzzy area of time too recent for me to have learned about in history classes, and not recent enough that I know about it from reading newspapers. So, for the moment, I'm going to assume everything that this site implies is true.
I want you to believe, for right now, or permanently if you like, that these accusations are all true as well. Jane Fonda is a communist America-hating terrorist. John Kerry, by being photographed near her, admits to sharing these qualities with her. This, while a good start, is only a tiny fraction of the conclusions we can draw. I've made a list to help you get started discovering the secrets of Jane Fonda and John Kerry.
-Jane Fonda is a bearded man wearing sun glasses
-John Kerry had the title role in the science fiction/boobs classic, Barbarella: Queen of the Galaxy
-Jane Fonda is out of focus
-John Kerry is a chubby, dorky guy with a peace sign on his hat
-Jane Fonda is a red arrow with "John Kerry" written over her in white letters that points to John Kerry
You can keep going forever! It's fun!
UPDATE:
Turns out that they write "Adv:" next to advertisements. They didn't the last time I checked, but that was a while ago.
Todays horrible article on newsmax is actually a paid advertisement. At first, though it was really terrible, I didn't want to do write about it. After all, newsmax doesn't technically control what ads they run, and ads definitely don't count as political content. Then I changed my mind, because if you look at the front page for articles, and you scroll down, you'll see ads mixed in with the articles. Newsmax is definitely trying to fool you into confusing advertising with content. So, I was fooled. The following link and everything in it was created by newsmax, and everything in it was newsmax's idea.
Apparently, John Kerry is a communist who hates America. You can tell because he's been in two pictures with Jane "People Like To Call Me 'Hanoi Jane' For Reasons That Are Somewhat Unclear To Me Because I'm 19 Years Old" Fonda, one of them fake. This seems somewhat questionable to me, especially because the main page of the store is full of articles about Kerry, all of which fail to connect him with any actual America hating or terrorism. Then again, the Vietnam War is in that fuzzy area of time too recent for me to have learned about in history classes, and not recent enough that I know about it from reading newspapers. So, for the moment, I'm going to assume everything that this site implies is true.
I want you to believe, for right now, or permanently if you like, that these accusations are all true as well. Jane Fonda is a communist America-hating terrorist. John Kerry, by being photographed near her, admits to sharing these qualities with her. This, while a good start, is only a tiny fraction of the conclusions we can draw. I've made a list to help you get started discovering the secrets of Jane Fonda and John Kerry.
-Jane Fonda is a bearded man wearing sun glasses
-John Kerry had the title role in the science fiction/boobs classic, Barbarella: Queen of the Galaxy
-Jane Fonda is out of focus
-John Kerry is a chubby, dorky guy with a peace sign on his hat
-Jane Fonda is a red arrow with "John Kerry" written over her in white letters that points to John Kerry
You can keep going forever! It's fun!
UPDATE:
Turns out that they write "Adv:" next to advertisements. They didn't the last time I checked, but that was a while ago.
Thursday, April 15, 2004
I've been thinking about getting one of these blogs for a long time. The main thing stopping me was a feeling that I wouldn't have enough things to say to justify it, and that I would update once a week or so, and lose interest after about two. So for a long time, I didn't bother getting a blog. Then I remembered this one time that I wrote a letter to some guy on Newsmax. He never responded, probably because he wrote an essay consisting of literally nothing but logical fallacies, and the letter I wrote him used sentences in a coherent way. My point is, newsmax is a practically limitless source of material for me, and now I have a blog.
If you think I'm setting my standards a little low, you're probably right. Let's face it, I can write so many updates that can be summarized as "stop hating middle eastern people and using misleading quotes" before I get tired. You should give me some more difficult sources of material through my e-mail in the links section.
That's it. I suppose I'll start updating regularly tomorrow.
UPDATE:
Looks like Blogger really likes it when the mailto link is the same color as the background. I took it off the links section. This is my mail and if the link turns out the same color as the background I'm not going to take it well.
If you think I'm setting my standards a little low, you're probably right. Let's face it, I can write so many updates that can be summarized as "stop hating middle eastern people and using misleading quotes" before I get tired. You should give me some more difficult sources of material through my e-mail in the links section.
That's it. I suppose I'll start updating regularly tomorrow.
UPDATE:
Looks like Blogger really likes it when the mailto link is the same color as the background. I took it off the links section. This is my mail and if the link turns out the same color as the background I'm not going to take it well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)